RealPage's federal settlement did not end the rent-pricing case. RealPage, Camden and Pinnacle told a federal court in North Carolina that the Justice Department's final judgment against RealPage, entered May 14, 2026, makes at least some of the states' antitrust claims moot. In a September 15 reply, the plaintiff states said they are not parties to that judgment and "remain free to seek the full extent" of relief. For landlords who use revenue management software, that means the state case, and the risk that comes with it, is still live.
What happened
The case is United States v. RealPage in the Middle District of North Carolina. Multifamily Dive lists ten plaintiff states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington) suing alongside the federal government. The complaint was filed in 2024 and amended in January 2025 to add landlord defendants.
The federal side has mostly settled. DOJ announced its proposed RealPage settlement on November 24, 2025. Cortland, Greystar, LivCor and Willow Bridge settled separately with the federal government, and Pinnacle reached a proposed federal settlement in September that does not include the states. Camden has not settled in this case.
On August 25, the court listed the motions still pending and asked any party contending that a consent decree or judgment made a motion moot to file a response. On September 1, three defendants used that opening to go further:
- RealPage argued the final judgment makes moot the states' federal Sherman Act claims and their state-law requests for injunctive relief. It argued that no state raised concerns during the 60-day Tunney Act comment period.
- Camden asked the court to dismiss all injunctive-relief claims against it, or allow more briefing, citing the RealPage judgment and its own $53 million class-action settlement in the parallel Tennessee litigation. Camden disputes that its conduct was unlawful.
- Pinnacle asked the court to dismiss the Section 1 claims with prejudice or allow more briefing. It noted that its class settlement in the Tennessee litigation has a final approval hearing in October.
The states responded on September 15 that no motion pending before the court argues mootness, that the defendants' filings should not be treated as motions to dismiss, and that they reserve the right to respond if one is properly filed. They also said they have not settled with RealPage, Camden or Pinnacle.
The court has not ruled on mootness. RealPage's own filing notes the states are also seeking civil penalties and other monetary remedies, which RealPage argues do not keep the injunction claims alive.
Why it matters for property managers
The federal judgment already changes the software you may be using. DOJ said the proposed settlement, since entered as the final judgment, requires RealPage to stop using competitors' nonpublic data at runtime to set rents, train models only on nonpublic data aged at least 12 months, and avoid geographic effects narrower than the state level. According to RealPage's filing, the judgment also requires Auto Accept parameters to be set individually by each user, requires settings that let recommendations go below a pricing floor to the same extent they can exceed a pricing ceiling, and authorizes a compliance monitor.
The state case is about more than injunctions. If the states keep their claims, they say they "remain free to seek the full extent" of relief, and RealPage's own filing acknowledges they are also seeking civil penalties and other monetary remedies. Defendants argue otherwise, and a judge will decide. Until then, "RealPage settled" does not mean the legal questions about shared pricing software are over.
State law is moving faster than the courts. California's AB 325 took effect January 1, 2026. It bars using or distributing a "common pricing algorithm" as part of an agreement to restrain trade, and California's new antitrust laws also allow civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation in cases brought by the attorney general or a district attorney. A landlord outside this lawsuit can still be exposed under a state statute.
Settlements set the benchmark. Camden and Pinnacle point to their class settlements; Camden's includes limits on software that uses certain nonpublic data. Whatever the court decides on mootness, those terms show what regulators and plaintiffs expect from pricing tools.
What to do this week
This is general information, not legal advice. Rules vary by state and city, so confirm specifics with antitrust or local counsel.
- Ask your vendor in writing whether your revenue management product complies with the RealPage final judgment. Ask what data it uses at runtime, how old its training data is, and whether it uses any competitor nonpublic data.
- Audit your auto-accept and floor settings. Confirm your team set them for your own properties, and document who set them and why.
- Keep a record of independent pricing decisions. Note when and why managers overrode a recommendation. That record can help show that pricing decisions were your own.
- Check your state's rules if you operate in California or one of the plaintiff states. California has its own algorithmic-pricing statute; check whether your state or city has one.
- Stop informal rent sharing. Do not exchange current rents, occupancy or pricing plans with competing owners, directly or through a vendor.
What we're watching
- A mootness ruling or a formal motion. If defendants file a proper motion to dismiss for mootness, the states have said they will respond substantively.
- Pinnacle's October hearing on final approval of its class settlement in the Tennessee litigation.
- Camden's settlement. Camden's $53 million settlement has preliminary approval; watch for the final approval schedule.
- The monitor's work. The federal judgment authorizes a monitor to check RealPage's compliance, and its findings could shape what other pricing vendors do.